“Our board was completely unanimous on baseball Jan. 15 of last year, and I think our board will be completely unanimous on baseball today,” said Commissioner Bert Nasuti, the project’s chief proponent.

Nasuti is betting the ballpark will help boost Gwinnett’s economy. Conventions, Sports & Leisure International, the consulting company hired to study the feasibility of bringing baseball to the county, said a $38 million ballpark would generate $6.3 million to $8 million in net new spending each year, create 130 to 170 jobs and generate between $267,000 and $342,000 a year in taxes.

“You don’t shut down economic development opportunities when times are bad,” Nasuti said. “That is when you look at economic development opportunities.”

The kool-aide in Gwinnett is strong and plentiful! I found it very interesting that Chairman Bannister actually referenced the stadium as the “contraversial stadium” in his state of the county address. Also, not one of the comissioners would go on record with the press on this issue.

We get a socialized garbage plan that is now in court injunction status and these elected officials continue to ignore the desires of people and make decisions as if there is no end in the checkbook.

So we can blame the economy on all of this is the excuse we will hear for teh next ten years.

In reading your Gwinnett posts, it appears that you leave the door open for other justifications. How about these? First, the brainstorming behind these projects could be analogous to the scene in Gladiator when Leif/Joaquin Phoenix is planning the most glorious series of games Rome ever saw. Second, Keynesian fiscal stimulus. Since you know the numbers as well as anyone, what lessons could be drawn from this project that could translate to the income multipliers presented by proponents of fiscal spending projects? I realize you voiced your skepticism regarding multipliers in general, but you did not go into detail.

This is all just another episode of ‘dueling experts’ and those on either side are going to consider the motives and research models of those that agree with them pure and those on the other side flawed. It goes back to a quote that I first heard from one of the failed Jets’ coaches of the 90s (I forget which one as they were all interchangeable). He said that statistics were like loose women in that once you had one you could pretty much make it do anything you want.

In these situations, you have to go with common sense and logic. I read one of the studies which stated that there was evidence to show that metro areas that hosted Super Bowls and Olympics saw no increase in airline traffic, hotel occupancy or retail sales for having hosted. This simply does not make sense. I live in Jacksonville and saw first hand that there were thousands of visitors here for our Super Bowl who would not have been here otherwise. I realize that some other people might have come if we hadn’t had the Super Bowl and that there were people who stayed away because of the Super Bowl crush, but downtown was never before and has never since been as packed as it was for that Super Bowl week. Common sense dictates that we accept that there is some economic impact of sporting events. It may not be what the proponents say and it is also likely not as negative as the opponents contend. Research in any area of study is flawed by bias and it is naive to think that either side of this question is without ulterior motives.

“Dueling experts” would require that there be a group of economists arguing both sides. This is not the case, the consensus view among economists is that there are no economic benefits from these projects. This is not controversial.